Another thrilling round of "Anarchism and Animal Rights

however the humane argument should not be confused with the scientific argument which a lot of people arguing for animal "rights" do all the time. most people don't actually want to cause pain and stress to animals but many people believe it is necessary to do so if it leads to a greater benefit which is why using animals to test makeup etc is a completely different moral argument.

which leads on to the scientific bit. looking at the quote you used about treatment of HIV/AIDS, therapy and cure are not the same thing. HIV drug cocktails developed through animal and human testing have been indisputably effective in lessening and spacing out episodes of crisis. People have more stable lives with less illness for longer periods. Finding a cure for a disease is much more complex but without testing the cocktails of drugs on animals, therapy at least would not have come as far as it has. there obviously is scientific value in animal testing. you say yourself there is no reason to stop taking the drugs tested initially on animals - the reason why we take them is because the drugs work.

it is unlikely that serious alternatives to animal testing will be developed as long as animals are a cheap resource and until it can be proven that non animal methods of developing drugs are safe for consumers and effective. its a catch22 situation. there is no real incentive for drug companies to finance research which uses non-animal methods of testing to build up the knowledge base of scientific enquiry and public confidence in their product.

btw, i'd watch out for the rabid anti-abortionists on this one. people who have prioritised animals as an area of activism have been relatively successful in scaring labs and scientists into retreat but the pro-lifers are scary fucks too

i should point out that i was refering to the ridiculousness of the continued testing of cosmetics on animals (admittedly being overly simplistic). clearly as a vegan i don't think there is any justification for testing cosmetics on animals, as cosmetics are not and have never been essential to human survival, and as a safe guard for some ponce like revol popping up and claiming that i was trying to be some kind of poser feminist and implying that we should discard all the make-up and stuff already developed and appreciate true human beauty maaaaaan, or some other hippy bullshit. what's done is done, if when someone just thought it was a good idea to squirt perfume in a rabbits nose i could have stopped it i would have.

i see medical testing as a seperate issue from others, because it is directly implicated in saving human lives, and as i do think humans are more important than other animals, IF animal testing is necessary to develope new medicines, then i support it in its most humane and limitted form possible. i'm fully aware of the various scientific arguements against animal testing, back in my dark days of shit politics (that's about two years ago now...) i spent many a rainy afternoon outside hls, and as i'm not an irrational fool i wouldn't have done so without reading up a bit first (even if the main reason was because i was friends with the main animal rights guy in brum).

however, you can find a scientist to argue pretty much anything fairly convincingly, and since as i'm not in a position to personal help the developement of non-animal testing, and know that i have absolutely no hope of convincing capitalism to abandon it, i shall reserve my absolute judgement on whether or not all animal testing is wrong and unnecessary until the day scientists are removed from the constraints of capitalism.

oh yeah, and lucy, i'd just like to reassure you that i agree with you about testing on paedophiles, i was just curious as to what kalabine thinks as he apparent believes they deserve the death penalty, and is in favour of maximum possible technological developement. as he's not in favour of say, the death penalty for cats (as far as i know), i wondered how his logic went around that point...

it would be pointless testing on pedos as they are part crab anyway

I'm not confusing the two, it just so happens there are arguments against animal testing for both ethical and scientific reasons -you cant separate them. Personally the ethical reasons against animal testing outweigh even their assumed benefits, but the numerous scientific critiques say that animal testing is not as beneficial for drugs testing as people think it is. If most believe we need to cause severe amounts of pain and suffering (killing an animal every three seconds in the EU alone) for the production of a drug they usually dont know the flip side of the argument. They dont know the basic scientific implications of using a non-human testing model and importantly they dont have a clue about the conditions and actual testing that animals undergo.

"HIV drug cocktails developed through animal and human testing have been indisputably effective in lessening and spacing out episodes of crisis". I thought we were mainly talking about cures here, but on treatments you're accepting several things...Since we have produced treatments for AIDS that have gone through animal as well human testing, you assume that animals were a necessary part of that treatment. That animals are not only valuable for drugs development; they are invaluable. Ofcourse, where animals have been used in scientific progress there has always been "alternatives" and non-animal testing. They could've been used more widely but they weren't it in no way proves they are inferior to animal testing. But actually alternative testing is already being used widely elsewhere, one UK-based drug company "Pharmagene Laboratories" uses human data, tissues and computers rather than animal testing and still produces safe drugs.

"you say yourself there is no reason to stop taking the drugs tested initially on animals - the reason why we take them is because the drugs work." That's taking the point further...the reason they work is not necessarily because they were tested on animals. As I've already said, the Drugs very often Dont Work; the number of medications being recalled often in direct relation to their animal testing is growing and "adverse drug reactions have increased more than five-fold in the UK in the past ten years, to reach more than 1,100 in 2000".

You can do as much computer modelling and in vitro testing as you like, but at some point you're gonna have to test your drug in vivo. And since whole organisms are much more complex than tissue cultures or any computer simulation, the results will never be entirely predictable. So either you test on animals first to see if anything unexpected happens, or you skip that and go straight to human test subjects. Of course animal tests might not pick up everything that could go wrong, and some of the adverse effects in animals might not apply to humans. But if I was volunteering to safety test some new drug, I know I'd feel a damn sight more comfortable if it had been tried on animals first.

And I'm only talking about testing for safety here, not efficacy, so your quote about the difficulty in finding animal models for AIDS doesn't apply.

It's not just a legal safety net though, is it? I'm sure plenty of drugs have been rejected because they had unexpected adverse effects in animals that would also have occurred in humans. If they'd gone straight to clinical trials, people would have died. Clearly animal testing's far from infallible - it won't weed out every problem, and it'll eliminate some drugs that might be perfectly safe in humans - but it's still an indispensible step between in vitro/computer modelling and clinical trials.

And all drugs do go through that process, even if they aren't tested on animals it's inevitable that they have to encounter a whole system -and that usually involves clinical trials etc. In vitro, computer modelling etc. cannot fully predict what'll happen when it's finally taken by a human being. The same is true, but on a larger scale, with animal testing. The "whole system" isn't even human. Animal tests alone are more inadequate; Aspirin, Penicillin, Arsenic, Insulin etc. all have completely differing results when tested on animals. The point is alternative testing gives you a more accurate picture, it cant always predict the final effects but it'll do more well than animal testing before the clinical stage.

You're missing the point -on the other hand, many drugs have adverse effects on animals but are completely beneficial when it comes to humans. No drug would go straight to clinical trials. Animal testing doesn't provide an added layer of protection, it mucks up your research, it cannot adequately predict how a human will react to a test drug, a carcinogen or a surgical procedure, these studies have little or no value. They are expensive and time-consuming, wasting time and money that would be better used in other, more effective kinds of research.

I'm not arguing for animal tests alone. I'm saying that the first whole system drugs encounter shouldn't be a human. Do all the alternative testing you like, animal testing gives you an extra set of data to work with, and can highlight problems that you'd miss with other tests. Sure, the results won't necessarily be the same as in humans, but if the drug has some unexpected adverse effect in animals you can then investigate how it's produced that effect, with a view to determining whether it's likely to have the same effect in humans.

Hardly - the point is that animal testing in some cases saves human lives.

It's far from perfect, but I'd rather see animals die than humans. If you skip the animal testing and go straight to clinical trials, then in some cases humans will die due to adverse reactions that could have been identified in animal tests.

Please don't tell me what I do and do not understand - I'd be willing to bet I know more than you about science.

I am aware that all drugs must go through human trials, but if there were no prior animal tests lots of these people would die or be severely damaged in some way by them.

No mate, you dont understand and if it shakes your ego that much that someone could say that to you, good.

To Garner's point; animal tests don't provide added protection, no matter how much animal testing you do and no matter how many animals you abuse in that process the fundamentals are that the animal model is an unreliable, and invalidating means of checking the safety of a drug. They are two completely different biological systems. Carrying out animal tests and full humane pre-clinical studies also doesn't make sense. The research is still going to be completely thrown off balance by the inclusion of non-humans and you're, as I said, going to be wasting tons of time and money in the process. By the way, that's not what happens today. A greater deal of resources are put into animal testing rather than the "alternatives" at the moment, which is one very big reason drugs are recalled so often.

To your point; "but if there were no prior animal tests lots of these people would die or be severely damaged in some way by them." Which then amazes me mr. iknowmoresciencethanyoumeh that you didn't know drug companies and organisations exists today and are working now which exclude animals from the process completely and yet still produce safe (if not safer) drugs. The fact that animal testing is so prevalent is not evidence of the need for animals in the field of testing but that the practice has become so engrained, and unquestionable within science. Animals are a cheap and easy resource which complies to legal checks and where there is a vested profit-interest even though there are humane methods which could replace those animals for just about every application.

I think I might have to start a Morgan Spurlock style crusade against animal "rights" nonsense.

From here on in every time an animal "rights" activist compares animal testing or battery farming to the nazis or the holocaust I am going to go out and get a burger at McDonalds. Or, if I'm feeling flush, I'll go to the nearest super-fancy food emporium and get some foie gras.

Are you the same IA from Ireland?

oh leave it out IrrationallyAngry. I don't agree with Volin but i don't think stuffing your face at Mcdonalds as a lifestyle choice is great either and as a method of protest for a number of reasons its fucking ridiculous.

has anyone on this thread actually been stupid enough to make comparisons to the nazis or the holocaust btw? the thread is now too long so i can't be arsed to go back to look.

I'm not suggesting that eating at McDonalds is a wonderful lifestyle choice or an effective method of changing the world. I'm taking up this crusade simply because I'm fed up with animal "rights" lunatics making crass to the point of dementia comparisons with the holocaust. From here on in that stupidity will have consequences beyond making everyone else think "what a pack of dicks". Every time I see one of them do it a cute fluffy animal is going to die.

And no I haven't noticed anyone on this thread mention the holocaust yet, which is why I'm still at this computer and not wolfing down a quarter pounder with cheese.

then wtf is your point?

I refer you to page 6 of this very thread. Burger time!

haha

eat it hippie scum EAT IT

we're in EUROPE muthafuka, it's called a ROYALE with cheese. and thanks, cantdo, i'd forgotten how utterly disgusting fastfood looks, which i c=gave up several years before i even stopped eating meat. but yes, comparing animal cruelty with the holocaust (or rape, or any other form of human to human abuse) is pretty ridiculous (other than in the sense of "abuse of animals is nothing like blah blah blah" obviously), and undermines all the arguements., as far as i'm concerned.

but come on, eating the crap at mcdonald's is punishing yourself, not animal rights activists, we all know animals die for that rubbish anyway, so why eat something disgusting? at the very least, eat some bacon, i seem to remember that didn't immediately make me want to throw up, or better still, salmon. or crab. that'll teach us. mind you, mcdonald's ARE awesome, otherwise there wouldn't be clean public toilets in every single town.

Actually me (veggie, 15 years) and gav (hardcore vegan) started eat meat again after a long animal rights debate where we got called Nazis 8)

You said this:

And I do understand the process you muppet. It didn't "shake my ego" you saying I didn't know something that I did, it made me think you were a patronising cock.

Here's a big example why your whole argument is bollocks:

You're trying to argue that animal rights and anarchism are linked right?

Capitalism is based on making the most profit possible right?

So what even though it costs companies profits, they just torture all these animals for fun? And this is inherently linked to capitalism in some way?

Jesus

And as for this:

Well yes it does - that's why people are hardly ever (I can't find any who have) killed or severely harmed by medical trials!

In fairness, the guy had already pointed to the large number of drugs recalled for precisely the reason they these drugs have been killing or severely harming people. Hell we've even run articles on some of the more recent ones for Freedom (three of GSK's major new products for a start)...

Also, the reason you wont have found anything will almost certainly be linked to the fact that the trials will have compreshensive confidentiality agreements, rather than any other considerations. I know of at least one case of whistleblowing on that very subject in the US.

Also, testing continues to be a very cheap way of producing a series of test results that will a) be accepted by government regulators b) be more trusted by the public.

Regardless of whether the product has to be recalled later, or a couple of people sue, it means the product gets out. The company makes billions, the maximum they will lose through sueing is millions.

I'm basically neutral on this subject, on the grounds I'm not a biologist, but there is a case to be made that companies could, in theory, assuming animal testing is not in fact a reliable indicator of human reaction, be simply using it as a figleaf to foist potentially unsafe products on us.

edit: I haven't got around to looking at the evidence yet, hence my neutrality. Volin's recall figures are pretty damning though, where did they come from?

omg, you actually when through the whole topic, and it wasn't even me that brought it up. When I said,

"I think it's part of the same thing. The manifestations of oppression you mentioned can be listed amongst the countless other systematic horrors humanity is responsible for -including the millions of caged animals slaughtered every day. Its your opinion that such human oppression is worse, simply because humans are involved. I think that's probably based in same (common) egocentric/anthropomorphic perspective of the world; if you want to believe it, fine. But if you want to judge things in terms of qualia then you cant help but recognise the qualiative suffering involved in, say, the meat industry..."

I fucking agree with that completely. And if you have to feed your little screwed up brain with minced McTesticles go ahead, and in the process you'll be contributing to a system that fucks up yourself, the environment, animals, the developing world and workers everywhere. So brilliant response.

I really am not gathering the point of your posts, you said, "The rich wouldn't risk their lives having drugs or whatever pumped into them for a few quid, only the poorest and most desperate would." which suggests that people aren't being widely used in the testing process and that without animals it would mean that that would be the case. But that isn't the main reason for your misunderstanding.

No, that's rather undeniable. You then say...

"Capitalism is based on making the most profit possible right?"

Anarchism isn't just about anti-capitalism (we've already been here) but yeah capitalism is an economic system where wealth is owned and distributed in private hands...

"So what even though it costs companies profits, they just torture all these animals for fun? And this is inherently linked to capitalism in some way?"

I just said, "Animals are a cheap and easy resource which complies to legal checks and where there is a vested profit-interest". It wastes money to the extent that that money used in breeding, maintaining and carrying out that animal testing could be better used elsewhere. But no using generally it does not harm a company's profits, putting money into and changing the status quo to a humane testing probably wouldn't be the best way to increase economic gains. And correct, "this is inherently linked to capitalism in some way" because capitalism puts profit before the lives of humans or animals, it is unjust and from the perspective of the exploited and oppressed it should be changed.

""It is well accepted that about 100,000 deaths per year and about 15% of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse reactions to medications. Between 1976 and 1985, 102 of the 198 new medications that had undergone extensive animal testing were either withdrawn or relabeled by the FDA due to severe and unpredicted side effects." The stats. there are from the States but I've read similar proportios for the UK."

Similar UK proportions;

"A report by the Audit Commission 'A Spoonful of Sugar' published in 2002, revealed that human deaths attributed to adverse drug reactions have increased more than five-fold in the UK in the past ten years, to reach more than 1,100 in 2000. According to a scientific study published in 2001, 16,000 people die every year in Germany from adverse drug reactions (Ref: P Schoenhoefer et al: DGPT-Forum 2001, 28, 15-19)."

Not really. If they're true (which seems strange - only 200 drugs in nearly 10 years) then that's probably likely to happen anyway. Many drugs have side effects which only become apparent after widespread long-term usage.

Indeed. I don't think anyone here would argue that animal testing is infallible, just that it's a sensible precaution which saves quite a lot of lives. The fact that in some cases it fails to save lives is beside the point if you're arguing that it should be got rid of altogether.

ultimately the AR scum can't get round the fact that banning animal testing under capitalism would mean poor people (probably in poor countries) would become the new frontline for testing, and given the bribe of 'decent' money would not be making a free choice

that is the bottom line - and why AR must be seperated from the movement for working class self orgasnisation

Those are fatalities, not including all other examples which have had adverse to severe affects in humans. So, yes I'd consider it to be pretty damning. And John, all drugs have side effects but a side effect shouldn't amount to the same thing as having the likelihood of killing/severely harming you. That's a failure in the testing process, and it's surprisingly common.

kalabine have you even read the discussion?

And if it weren't for animal testing, there'd be many more fatalities. So while animal testing is fairly crap, and should certainly be supplemented with various alternatives, it's a lot better than nothing.

well i've had a change of heart. I was the same place as ex-enrager poster JDMF was holding a vegan fitness social. Which basically consisted of sweaty muscle bound men walking around half naked. So i now reckon its obvious that animal rights are like totally ras and everyone should have um[/img]

What are?

Please tell me you're joking.

If you test a drug on a small sample, say 20 people (cos you can't [unless you're a misanthropist AR idiot of course] test a brand new, untested drug on huge numbers of people) then you can't know if there will end up being a 1 in a million chance of a fatality can you? Fucking hell

Oh and this:

I couldn't see what this was in response to

But this is class

Do you talk to people you work with like that? Or are you a student or something?